Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36527376›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Feature selection methods and predictive models in CT lung cancer radiomics.

Gary Ge, Jie Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prognostic potential of radiomics evaluation of lung artery thrombus for pulmonary embolism patients.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  13. Radiomics in spinal research: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gary GeDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Jie ZhangDepartment of Radiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics is a technique that extracts quantitative features from medical images using data-characterization algorithms. Radiomic features can be used to identify tissue characteristics and radiologic phenotyping that is not observable by clinicians. A typical workflow for a radiomics study includes cohort selection, radiomic feature extraction, feature and predictive model selection, and model training and validation. While there has been increasing attention given to radiomic feature extraction, standardization, and reproducibility, currently, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation of feature selection methods and predictive models. Herein, we review the published radiomics investigations in CT lung cancer and provide an overview of the commonly used radiomic feature selection methods and predictive models. We also compare limitations of various methods in clinical applications and present sources of uncertainty associated with those methods. This review is expected to help raise awareness of the impact of radiomic feature and model selection methods on the integrity of radiomics studies.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedCTfeature selectionlung cancerpredictive modelradiomics

Identifiers

PMID36527376
PMCPMC9860004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.